Template talk:Saved book

User books
I think the template should clarify that this is not part of the encyclopedia (a bit like ). Cenarium (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As this template is visible to newcomers, we may try to draw their attention on how to contribute to Wikipedia, for example something like "If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, see the introduction to editing." or "To learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, see the introduction to editing.", in better. Cenarium (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the message should a) be omitted if created by next to be autoconfirmed users in the WP:Books ns and b) expire after a few days. I understand your thinking behind this: Some users get an account just to store books and they should be guided. But such a message should not distract existing users or visitors. --He!ko (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Enable category sorting
Category:Wikipedia books (community books) lists each of the Wikipedia:Books/subpages under the letter "B". I tried, and failed, here and here to make the template put  |  into the category like this, using as an example Books/Zeppelin:

I expected the template to produce

and thereby category sort the book under Z.

Can anyone make the template do this? I am pretty sure previously books appeared category sorted, but not today.

I found that books get sorted if I add the magic word  directly to the book itself like this:

-84user (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I believe Headbomb's recent changes to the template are working now to sort the books by the names, only it seems to take time before the category system catches up; some books are appearing correctly but most are still under "B". -84user (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT
Please remove the DEFAULTSORT from the template. When it generates an improper sort value, special characters for example, the error cannot be corrected. (See Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts.)

Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

cover-color
Where are acceptable values for cover-color enumerated? Josh Parris 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything color is allowed as far as I'm aware. Why? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably it's computer-interpreted; colors like "a 40/60 balance between mauve and eggshell white" aren't viable. So where's the list - is it browser colors? Josh Parris 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the usual HTML colors. #A52A2A --> this . Or DarkGoldenRod --> this . If you want to know what shortcuts are allowed, you can check HTML colornames. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotional template
This template is overly promotional with regards to PediaPress. The "Order this Book" link should be removed as per WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is not the place to promote any company or organization.  Them From  Space  03:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX?
This template sets NOINDEX. Do we want to do that? Some user books will be junk, yes; but some might actually be useful to other people. Why stop people finding those with Google and friends? --SJK (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick note only user books are not indexed, those in the book namespace are indexed. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on indexing user books or not. If people want them indexed, it's not a problem to update the template to reflect that. I would suggest posting a notice on WP:CENT to see how people feel about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would propose, that since we don't automatically NOINDEX user space, we shouldn't automatically NOINDEX user books either - unless we are aware of an actual tendency to abuse user books more than user space in general. I think there are three options: What do people think? --SJK (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Since user space in general is not automatically NOINDEX, user books should not be automatically NOINDEX either - any problematic ones can be manually marked as that
 * 2) Change all user space to be NOINDEX
 * 3) Keep user books as NOINDEX, leave user space as indexed (status quo) - I think this is only justifiable if we believe user books are significantly more subject to abuse than user space in general


 * If books are noindexed, then all user space should be noindexed by default. The bigger problem is that many have created userspace article drafts that amount to advertising, free-riding on our search engine rank; those are not Wikipedia books. PleaseStand (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. When in doubt, default to indexing. An open system is a healthier one, and problems will be better identified.  Skomorokh   13:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose indexing of any userspace content. Since there seems to be an inertia to taking away indexing on existing sorts of userpages, I'll be happy that as we add new features (like books) that each of the new features has a built-in NOINDEX for userspace usage. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indexing. Information is good. Search engines are good.  Unless there is a compelling reason not to make information searchable, we should index content. (A good reason would be analagous to NOFOLLOW on external links, but I can't identify a similar problem like linkspam here.)  Userspace, like any web content, will only show up on searches if the content is popular and highly linked to.  If it attracts eyeballs and links, then it's probably doing something right and should be shared.  The no-index idea seems to be a misplaced measure, where a broader solution might be indicated, such as not allowing Books in userspace at all (which I don't support), or requiring templates identifying userspace pages as not part of the mainspace (seems reasonable), or creating a separate area for user-created books (also interesting). But if Books are ok in userspace, why not index them? Ocaasi (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me give an example - my own user book User:SJK/Books/Covenants. I don't think there is any harm in indexing that -- I don't think you could call it POV-pushing or controversial or promotional. The main reasons I made this a user book was (1) maybe this is too particular choice of topic to be of general interest (2) i wanted to maintain control. Now, other people's user books might be different -- but lets NOINDEX the problematic ones rather than NOINDEX-ing across the board. --SJK (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it seems only one contributor is outright opposed (Jclemens), and their reasoning seems to be based on opposition to indexing user space in general than any particular issues with user books specifically. So I am going to remove the NOINDEX from the template. Jclemens is still free to argue for NOINDEXing user-space in general, which could be done without needing NOINDEX in any template (I assume it could be done as a Mediawiki configuration change or software enhancement, i.e. a list of namespaces to be always NOINDEX). --SJK (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SJK, 12 October 2010
Please remove per discussion above. This will remove NOINDEX-ing of user books. --SJK (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SJK (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor whitespace tweak
There is a line that reads --> {{nowrap|1={{nowrap|1= Favonian (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracking categories
edit protected Would there be any objection to renaming: to match the other categories in Category:Wikipedia books (tracking and cleanup categories)? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia books without cover images to Category:Wikipedia books (books without cover images)
 * Category:Wikipedia books without custom colors to Category:Wikipedia books (books without custom colors)
 * Makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a fan of a good Bracket. (I support this) <-- Yes that was just an excuse to use the parenthesizes...  S ven M anguard   Wha?
 * &#x2713; Done. I created the two new category pages and they will gradually populate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image update
-->|cover-image=|cover-image= [ [ Open in Book Creator] ]

Add EPUB format.

naveenpf (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where exactly in the template should this be added? --Closedmouth (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried the code above but it throws a rendering error. Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the problem? It works for me, and it would provide a feature that has been requested several times. And the [Download EPUB] "button" should be added after the other [Download XYZ] "buttons" and before the existing [Open in Book Creator] "button". – Tobias Bergemann (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We want the template changed like this: User:Tobias_Bergemann/Saved_book. Sorry, I find the requested change hard to explain in prose. – Tobias Bergemann (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Clicking the exact link above results in an error since it tries to download this talk page as a book; it works correctly when used in the "Book:" namespace. SiBr4 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: It shouldn't be throwing an error. It should be trying to download the corresponding Book: when on Book_talk: — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @T13: I don't get your point. This page isn't in the Book talk namespace, it's in the Template talk namespace. SiBr4 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have misread. I'll take a closer look but it appears there is a complaint using it from a talk page is throwing an error instead of pulling the ARTICLEPAGENAME instead. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Cover text color
It would be nice if the color of the cover could be changed independently of the color of the internal text (for colored covers). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can. That's what cover-color and text-color are for. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 October 2014
With the move to the new OCG backend for PDFs, the links to EPUB/ODF/etc are out of date.

C. Scott Ananian (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What, specifically, are you requesting here? To my knowledge, the links are all working. And I just confirmed this by downloading an ODF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Rendering starts, but fails at the end. I'll investigate some more I suppose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2014-September/000955.html (announced in meta:Tech/News/2014/40). I've provided more details on the necessary edits below. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2014
OCG has replaced the old mwlib-based book renderer. The ePub, ZIM, and Pediapress entries in this template should be commented out (since there is a chance these features will reappear), but the ODT link should be removed outright. The PDF (A4) link should include  in the query string, and the PDF (letter) link should include. (Although the paper size selections won't actually work until https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/165253 rides the deploy train; probably next Thursday.) Talk to  or  for more details; I will be on vacation the week of 2014-10-13.

C. Scott Ananian (WMF) (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're requesting quite a lot of changes. Would you mind putting them in Template:Saved book/sandbox and reactivating the request when ready? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Edits done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 October 2014
PediaPress and A4/Letter export work again. Please apply https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASaved_book%2Fsandbox&diff=630825679&oldid=630825021 (or just copy the source from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Saved_book/sandbox&oldid=630825679 ).

C. Scott Ananian (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2015
✅

The template is applying the Category twice and in the 2nd instance it includes a magic pipe which I am speculating corrupts the insertion and makes it visible as plain text as shown here: Book:Bring_Me_the_Horizon

Here is what the stray plain text Category looks like:  Checkingfax (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was only able to find the category you mention used once:


 * ...and I changed that to:


 * That made the category-rendered-as-text disappear. Painius 04:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , nice work. I wonder if the other Categories within the template need a similar code tweak to avoid rendering plain text? Checkingfax (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I did find that to be true, so I made the needed edits in the sandbox.  Since this template is transcluded more than 37,500 times, I'll wait a few hours before I make the changes to the live template. Painius  05:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , transclusion is a beautiful thing. Take care. Checkingfax (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You also, Checkingfax, and ✅. Painius 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the ratio?
484 × 600? —User 000 name 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wildbot appears to be dead; if so, should the Wildbot parameter be removed from this template?
It looks to me like WildBot is dead. It doesn't appear to have had any activity since January 2014. Does anyone know anything more about the status of this bot? If we confirm WildBot is dead, then it seems appropriate to remove the WildBot parameter from this template. At the very minimum we should update the documentation to note that WildBot is (at least) inactive. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2018
In any wide browser window, the user option explanations are well separated from the links to click and it looks visually more like a two-column layout, which is ridiculous and hard to interpret. I have edited the table cell styles in the template sandbox to bring associated explanations and links together for each option. Please can this, or something similar, be added to the template? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just edited the copy in the sandbox accordingly. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing end tag
Jonesey95 and anyone else interested: This template is generating a missing end tag lint error for  whenever the description parameter is used. See, for example, Book:Western New York. I leave it to the experts to know where to insert the. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that missing end tags are almost never actual errors. See this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The last word at this discussion is that missing end tags should be corrected. Will someone do so, so that the seven items in Book space that use this template will not have missing end tag lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This request is for you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The  tag has been slightly relocated and closed. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there  15:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 August 2019
I have updated the copy in the sandbox to: Could somebody check it out and move it live? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Fix the breakup problem described in my previous request.
 * 2) Update/correct the status of book creation vs. rendering.
 * 3) Improve alignment of the righthand borders of the various boxes.


 * looks okay on the test cases page. How have you tested these changes?  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  10:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have previewed it for an existing book and it looks the same as in the sandbox. Is that enough? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Seems as if you've made changes that would only appear if certain parameters are used. If that is correct, then those changes would have to be tested. Of concern would be changes, if any, that would not show up on the testcases page.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  19:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked through the code and found a bug in the commenting-out of a table row that broke the html, it did not affect the current display or function in any page but I have now fixed it. The diff for my combined changes is here. The bit that I commented-out is currently only struck out, but the feature has been unavailable for several years, there is no longer any timeline for its restoration. If it ever does come back it may not have exactly the same options. I removed it from display in all pages rather than leave it embarrassingly struck out, which is my intention and part of what I tested. Come the day, the commenting-out need only be reversed. I did have to delete a short html comment in it to avoid nesting comments, but that only contained a line break and had no functional significance. My other changes are all boilerplate. Does all that make sense? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does, yes, and thank you; okay do any of your changes also involve the need to modify the template documentation? and if so, are you ahead of that?  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 13:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, technically no. Some parameters relate to the options already struck out a while ago so the doc should have been updated at the time to explain that (now done). All I did in that respect was to comment out what was already struck out. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent and ✅. Thank you for your improvements and for your patience with me!  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 17:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, QA is always a stodgy process. Thank you for doing it right. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasure!  Paine  20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2019
The addition of Template:Historical is a massive blunder and needs to be reverted ASAP. Uploading of books to external services such as PediaPress print-on-demand and MediaWiki2LaTex PDF softcopy is still active and the Book Creator front end is verry necessary functionality on Wikipedia. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change Village pump (technical)/Archive 176

to

Village pump (technical)/Archive 176. adding a period. {&#123;31&#125;} {&#123;25A (talk)&#125;} 20:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2021
Please change "A proposal" to "A consensus" in the ambox, as well as add instructions for getting the page to userspace. Aasim (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , as far as I know, the plan is that (or rather their bot) will move all the Books to projectspace and then delete them. Once deleted, there will be little point to have instructions for undeletion in the template, as it won't be seen! I would imagine a better solution would be a link in the deletion summary to a page explaining the procedure for REFUND perhaps?  firefly  ( t · c ) 08:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The plan is as Firefly said and is being discussed at Village pump (technical). I will answer your other questions there, but I have updated the notice to reflect the current situation. If you have any suggestions for other changes to the notice I'm all ears. --Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)